On 11/07/2011 02:49 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> 2. eject with -f should really never be needed, but it does whatever is
> needed to be able to follow up with a "change" command. It turns out it
> is really "unlock" and "ask the guest to eject" combined, but that's the
> implementation, not the model.
Does this give different results than just asking the guest to eject
without forcefully unlocking? I would expect that a guest that responds
to the eject request would also unlock the drive. In which case I think
eject without -f should be enough?
Only if the guest is not buggy (e.g. locks the tray but stops polling
for eject requests) and has not crashed.
Paolo